Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Accessibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate rejects override of governor’s veto on accessibility requirements for affordable housing (LB 8‑39)
Summary
The Nebraska Legislature voted 19‑28 (2 present not voting) to sustain Gov. Pillen’s veto of LB 8‑39, a bill that would have required a share of state‑funded multifamily units be accessible to people with mobility, visual and hearing impairments. Proponents said the measure addressed a statewide shortfall in accessible housing; opponents called mandated quotas costly for small builders.
Senators on the floor debated and then rejected a motion to override Gov. Pillen’s veto of LB 8‑39, a bill that would have required affordable multifamily projects receiving state funds to reserve 5% of units for mobility‑impaired residents and 2% for visual or hearing impairments.
Senator Rountree, who moved the override, framed the bill as an effort to close an accessibility gap nationwide and cited county disability statistics to argue that accessible units are needed across Nebraska. “We are here to provide a future for those fourth graders,” Rountree said in opening remarks, urging colleagues to hold developers receiving taxpayer dollars to minimum accessibility standards and to rely on the Olmstead line of cases as a policy touchstone for integrated housing.
Opponents—including Senator Dover and Senator Lippincott—noted concerns about mandates and construction costs, arguing incentives and targeted local studies would be a more prudent approach than a statewide quota. Dover argued the federal aid and many larger projects already meet the 5%/2% federal threshold and warned mandates could disadvantage small, local builders who do not use federal financing.
After roughly two hours of floor debate the clerk read the recorded vote: 19 ayes, 28 nays, 2 present not voting. The motion to override was not successful, and the governor’s veto stands.
The bill’s proponents said the statute’s data‑collection provisions were meant to identify local needs and set tailored targets; opponents countered that the one‑size‑fits‑all percentages could have uneven effects across Nebraska’s varied housing markets. The Legislature moved on to other items after the vote.
